“If a child goes to a private school, you have a
significant investment on the line, and therefore you want performance
from both the school and your son or daughter. Public school — what’s
your investment? For most parents, cash out of pocket? Little or
nothing. But yet, they can continue to make demands on the system. They don’t have any ‘skin in the game.’ "

– Phil Krinkie, Minnesota Taxpayers League

Uh, Phil? Even discounting the taxes parents pay, the skin in the game is on their kids.

This is not quite what I had mind with my conversations with conservatives experiment.

"We need to wake up and see that the folks on the other
side are well armed and not afraid to shoot while we’re less well armed
and want to hold our fire. They don’t care about creating consensus and
working with other people. That’s how they approach the world and it’s
valuable for us to have that conversation."– Brad Lundell, executive director of Schools for Equity in Education, talking about Phil Krinkie's remarks to the group, quoted by Minnesota 2020

I'm heading out to Colorado today and will miss a string of Drinking Liberally get-togethers. You'll miss one, too, if you show up Thursday at the 331 Club, because tomorrow's event happens in St. Paul where DLers can collar St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman.

Bruce Benidt takes time out to reflect on our blogger retreat, and on treatment:

I’ve been buried in editing a book and doing other work and in the
raw emotional experience of having someone very dear to our family be
in Hazelden for treatment. I’ve found something powerfully in common
between Princeton and Hazelden — it’s listening, and its opposite,
pushing your position. I’ve discovered (Good Lord, how long must it
take?) that communication isn’t about advancing my position, however
right I’m sure it is.

Yes, that's $6 an hour for copy writing. Adding text to a web site goes for the same rate, thereby confirming that writing is officially indistinguishable from typing.

I'm not yet feeling threatened by Chinese copy writers, and I don't think MinnPost's freelance contributors are, either. After all, what publisher is going to ship stories overseas just to save 50 cents an hour?

But the global game is changing, and it includes services, not just products. How much is it changing?

I saw a headline the other day indicating the outsourcing boom in India may have peaked. Didn't find the same article, but there's plenty more out there once you look. It hasn't peaked simply because Indian wages are starting to rise — or that other countries like China are amping up their service outsourcing.

"Someone told us once, 'If you
built this down in southern India, and you want to ship it up to
Mumbai, it's going to take you six weeks. Whereas that same distance in
the United States would take you about a week,'" he says with a laugh.

Oh, yeah. Infrastructure! Let's hope the Indian and Chinese governments don't catch on to the idea of investing.

Meanwhile, I'm counting on coherent English sentence futures to be worth money for a few more years. Or 华文黑体 新細明體...

Will the trial of political donor and Ponzi schemer Norman Hsu be on a pace to beat the 2008 elections?

We know that Hsu is an advocate of speedy trials after his last experience. And we have reason to believe the Bush Justice Department might possibly encourage certain cases moving toward the front of the line.

Justice will be served. And if there are juicy revelations about how Hsu bundled/laundered political donations to certain presidential candidates, well, so be it.

My sister was one of the federal agents Hsu reached out to in Colorado. I don't know what he said beyond what's been reported publicly. But I do know she'll likely have to testify, and let's just say I may be watching their family dog sometime in the coming year.

The new complaint said that while in Colorado, Mr. Hsu reached out to
federal agents on three occasions and asked to speak to them without
his lawyers present. He is said to have told the agents that his
business deals involved no real investments but were in fact
fraudulent, and “admitted that he made implied threats to his investors
to pressure them to contribute to political candidates he supported.”
The threats, the authorities said, were that Mr. Hsu would cut the
investors out of deals that he described as lucrative.

Hsu apparently pressured investors to write checks and also funneled some of his "investment money" through Chinatown cooks and dishwashers. Either way, and regardless of party beneficiary, it was wrong. He should suffer the consequences. Fairly or not, candidates who didn't scrutinize his fund raising may also pay, regardless of whether they were legally complicit.

I think that's what the GOP will count on.

Sure, they had their Abramoff and defense contractor scandals. But the laundering on the other side is generally far more genteel. I've written about this before, but allow me to reiterate how it works.

Instead of crudely passing money through their mail carriers and laundry operators, the Bigs call a meeting of their executive team. They describe how candidate so-and-so is sponsoring important legislation or is a good friend of the company. Donations are suggested. Perhaps amounts are bonused back at the end of the year. Very difficult to prove two grand of the amount was for anything but good performance by the executive.

It's reported to the FEC and everything is legal and tidy.

Meanwhile, my sister will be getting on a plane for New York before November 2008, just doing her job, trying to make sure justice is served.

Dump Michele Bachmann shows how numbers mean different things depending on the political ax being ground.

First, extending health care to more kids. When discussing an income waiver for New York that was not approved as part of the SCHIP bill, Minnesota Sixth District Rep. Bachmann lunges for the Jason Lewis bait:

Jason Lewis: “This is not health care for poor people."

Michele Bachmann: “No! Are you kidding me? We’re talking people making $83,000 a year—that’s rich people in Minnesota.”

For the record, an $83,000 household income would rank in about the 85th percentile in Minnesota. You can decide whether that's rich.

However, you might not be surprised to learn that New York's cost of living is about 25% higher than ours. It's one reason New York requested a waiver. Bachmann is really talking about the equivalent of around $63,000 in Minnesota, or the 75th percentile. That's above the state median income, but hardly rich.

Next, cutting taxes. The formerly rich households became "hard-working middle-class families" in Bachmann's New York Post op/ed piece on the Alternative Minimum Tax. She's even willing to extend membership in the middle class all way $200,000 a year.

I'm not arguing the merits of either legislation here, simply looking at the rhetoric.

Is a single male living with two buddies "rich" if he's making $83,000? He might be excused for feeling that way.

Is a married working couple with two kids rich? Should their income level be treated any differently when it comes to health insurance coverage?

It is easy to see the jobs created by the additional spending on these construction projects; that is what is seen.
But she [Sen Tarryl Clark] seems incapable of understanding the jobs lost due to the
higher taxes to be paid now and in the future by businesses in return
for these projects. That is what is unseen.

Not to mention what is unestablished and unproven.

First, Banaian makes the assumption the public projects mentioned by Clark — biomedical research facility at the U of M, new public safety training
centers, and economic development projects around the state — are funded by higher business taxes. Corporate taxes provide about only 6.5% of annual state revenues for the general fund, and I'm not aware of proposals that would have increased taxes on business.

But maybe these tax increases on business were unseen.

Or perhaps the jobs were going to be lost because high earners might've had their incomes taxed higher. Otherwise their spending would've created jobs — perhaps remodeling their mansions or repaving their driveways — thereby employing the trades who weren't working on the state construction jobs. We don't know for sure what he meant, but why should he have to explain, because these benefits are unseen.

Or small business owners would've been crippled by taxes and been unable to hire more people to increase their incomes. As a business owner, I can say I never made a decision about hiring an employee based on taxes. Keeping the money for myself is what really increased my tax liability. But maybe I was just really stupid and paying unseen taxes instead of increasing my income.

Or maybe the tax -funded research centers would've failed to employ any new people who paid taxes. Maybe the training centers would've failed to help people qualify for new jobs. And the economic development projects would've drawn a blank, too. It happens. But so far, these shortcomings are also unseen.

God works in mysterious ways, too.

In making public policy decisions, I understand some consequences might be unseen. But don't ask me to imagine them. I don't see it, King. So show me, please.

Don Imus is out for "nappy headed hos" and Tom Barnard and crew are high fiving after a little reprimand goes in their jacket.

The uproar stems from a broadcast last month in which Barnard and
co-host Terri Traen talked about the Red Lake and Shakopee tribes while
discussing a report by the state Health Department that Beltrami County
has the state's highest rate of suicide among young people.

The jocks then mentioned Bemidji and the Red Lake reservation, both in Beltrami County.

"Maybe it's genetic; isn't there a lot of incest up there?" Traen said about the tribe.

"Not that I know of," Barnard replied.

"I
think there is," Traen continued. "Don't quote me on that, but I'm
pretty sure."Well, I'm glad you just threw it out there, then," Barnard
said to laughter in the background.

Here's the first conversation between Joey Monson (PheistyChick at PheistyBlog) and me. If you want more info about what I'm calling American Crosscut, go here.

Charlie: Funny that here we are talking when our first words to each other involved me taking a shot at your hero, Jason Lewis. I was impressed when you asked me for more information instead of getting mad. It seemed like this conversation between left and right idea could actually work — a few sparks flying, but real communication, too.

Joey: Actually, Charlie, I was quite taken aback that you were surprised that I wanted more information about your take on the facts that Jason Lewis presented. I know that there are people out there who ignore the facts, but maybe I’m a bit naive to think that most people want to stand on something true. Since I was a young girl, I’ve always wanted to find the truth in things, and I have always conceded when my beliefs are proven to be based upon something unfactual. This doesn’t change the fact that I want Jason Lewis to be right, because I agree with him on most things, but if he’s proven wrong with his numbers and facts, I will acknowledge that. I can’t not acknowledge that. It’s not in me to ignore truth.

Charlie: A number of my progressive friends have a great faith in the power of facts — just arrange them in front of people and they will see the light — so they’d be encouraged by what you say. But we both know people still view those facts through a scrim of personal experience, and I wonder if experience is really what makes people incline left or right.

I was struck in our Raku retreat discussion by how the conservatives seemed to name a personal setback or hardship as influencing their political views, while the progressives were more likely to describe a sort of journey or quest. I don’t mean to imply conservatives are the walking wounded and progressives are the truth seekers unmarked by life, but in that group, at least, we seemed to arrive at our ideologies over different paths.

Joey: Yes, we do view facts through personal experience and belief. I don’t think this is something that we will ever change, and in a way, I’m thankful for this. We need different people seeing things differently. It’s part of the beauty of being human and sharing a world with others who may be unlike us. I’ve learned a lot from people with whom I disagree, and who may have experienced life differently than I have.

Regarding our discussion at the Raku gathering and how the conservatives referred to a personal hardship that formed their beliefs, I can see what you’re saying. However, although I struggled as a single mother, I can say that my views on society haven’t changed much since I was a young girl. My experience as a struggling single mother who raised herself up out of poverty and heartache reaffirmed my belief in the individual, as opposed to the ‘collective.’

When I read “Atlas Shrugged” a few years ago, I actually started crying with relief, because I finally realized that I didn’t have to feel guilty for wanting to keep what was mine for me and my family. I had felt this guilt ever since I was a young girl, when I would have contempt for people who were perfectly capable of working, yet were receiving welfare checks. To see this made me angry, but my church and others had so ‘sainted’ those who were poor simply based upon their need, that I felt guilt for believing that just being poor and having need didn’t make you a noble human being.

To keep this brief (I could go on all day!), I believe that conservatives bring up past hardships to show that they rose above the hardships on their own, individually, and without assistance from the ‘collective.’ What do you think?

Charlie: Well, I do think it’s admirable when people pull themselves out of adversity, and it may be psychologically necessary for all of us to believe we have accomplished things totally on our own merit. But that means we probably underestimate the invisible hand of the common good operating in society. We don’t have to receive a check in order to benefit from what others have invested in the community.

Welfare seems to be a particular source of resentment for conservatives and certainly moderate Democrats have postured against it, too. I can’t deny welfare moochers existed in your town, but most recipients don’t stay on welfare. So why is it an issue for you and not for me? Your church might’ve “sainted” the poor because Jesus did. Jim Wallis says one out of every sixteen verses in the New Testament is about the poor.

Progressives like me see this less than gracious attitude — deciding which poor are deserving and which aren’t — as contradictory, especially since Christianity has such apparent influence in the conservative movement. I don’t want to turn this discussion to religion. I just mean to question why receiving no public help would lead to the position that others should do without, too. Because a progressive response is more likely to be, let’s change this. Let’s make sure these kids don’t have to suffer because their dad ran out on their mom.

Joey: It’s difficult for me, as a conservative, to see “the invisible hand of the common good operating in society.” This seems so vague to me. I do know that freedom is an essential to common good, and that because of that freedom, we can pull ourselves out of adversity. So in the sense of being lucky enough to be born in a free society, where people are able to do anything they want with their lives, yes, you don’t need to receive a check to benefit from what others have invested in the community. I see the sacrifice of soldiers defending my freedom as something that is done for the ‘greater good’, and I obviously receive no check, I receive my freedom to do what I will with my life as a free person. So I see your point, even if it’s from a completely different perspective.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t blame generational welfare on its recipients per se, I blame it on government for creating a sort of insulting degradation that keeps these people from doing what they should be able to do for themselves. I’m of the belief that welfare creates more welfare, and does not create more freedom for the poor. It creates a sort of prison, where they become complacent and unappreciative of the amazing opportunities that surround them. If the check comes to them by way of the government for nothing they have done, they soon come to believe that opportunity should be delivered in the same manner.

Regarding Christianity and Jesus as they relate to the poor, Jesus never ‘sainted’ the poor. This is a common misconception. Jesus didn’t think any more of the poor than He did of the rich. It was their souls He was the most concerned with. In Jesus’s time, there were no governments collecting taxes to be used as welfare. Good will towards your neighbor was the only form of ‘welfare’, which I don’t actually see as welfare. We should be expected, as humans, to care for those around us. I see government welfare as a lazy way of doing what Jesus asked us to do. Jesus didn’t simply want us to help the poor to help the poor. He realized the voluntary sacrifice, and the concern for another human being, could do amazing things in both the giver and receiver’s lives. When we expect the government to care for our poor, we attempt to alleviate some sort of guilt for not getting involved in the lives of our neighbors, and for not helping them, ourselves. It’s easy to pull the lever each election cycle and vote for the person who will take from the rich and give to the poor, simply to alleviate our own self-loathing and guilt for not helping our neighbor in a personal and giving way.

Charlie: Freedom certainly enables people to overcome adversity. In Jesus’ time and beyond, many governments addressed poverty with a welfare-to-work program called slavery, and they used the taxes they extracted to subjugate entire nations. I think the poor mostly took care of the poor.

Does giving create dependence or dampen initiative? Is receiving government help more insulting and degrading than receiving charity? Is government really the culprit behind “generational welfare?” Or could it more accurately be described as the legacy of ignorance, abuse, addiction, mental illness and a cocktail of other pathologies in families that, even with government aid, lack the resources to reverse them? We have to very careful here, because it’s easy to conflate the working poor with welfare recipients, with demoralized captives, with lazy, undeserving leeches on society. I believe, but won’t prove here, by the time you reach the latter groups, it’s a miniscule subset.

I think this is a really rich topic. Your point about some supporting taxes as a way to alleviate guilt for being less engaged with our neighbors is provocative, and I’d like to get back to it in fresh installment. What say we post this and come back in a week?

Joey: How right you are, Charlie. In Jesus' time and beyond, governments did address poverty with slavery. Unfortunately, I don't see our current system as anything less than slavery, only it's a different sort. It's a slavery of the mind, rather than the body. That's just my observation.

I want to explain myself a little better, regarding the "insulting" aspect of government "giving."

I think that some welfare is really government insulting people, by basically telling them that they can't 'do it' on their own.